The study of the Book of Mormon Geography seems to be 'much to do about something.' It is given that an understanding of the geography of a land does provide a person an increased perspective in relation to the events and topics covered in a historical, religions, or scriptural history. For example, who can say that an understanding of the geography of the Holy Land of Jerusalem and Israel is not a meaningful and significant aid in appreciating the New Testament? Thus, logically one must reject that concept that an understanding of the geography of the Book of Mormon is totally irrelevant. Having an understanding of the geography of the Book of Mormon lands is something! And it would be a significant advantage to have such a geography well established, documented, and officially proclaimed. Without it, much of what is taken by faith alone would be vastly improved by the facts of the matter relative to such an established geography.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not officially state any such prescribed geography of the Book of Mormon. In fact, it goes out of its way, officially to distance itself from any such prescribed geography, though some members become confused by the efforts of research groups to so ascertain Book of Mormon geographical information. Why does the Church so distance itself? It's not that such an understanding wouldn't be significant to the understanding of the Book of Mormon, as it is logically obvious that it would. So why doesn't the Church receive such a revelation and clarify the issue? One can only speculate.

Actually, there are at least two reasons that come to mind to appreciate why the Church does not at this particular point in time revel such a geography. The first reason is the obvious one that is often stated, and that is that obtaining a testimony of the Book of Mormon should be left mostly to an exercise in faith rather than that of tangible physical evidence. The more the physical evidence, the less faith must be exercised. And in truth, the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon does not rely on physical evidence, it relies on the Word of God, from God, by way of the Holy Ghost as prescribed by Moroni. So perhaps for this reason alone, the test of the Book of Mormon should be left right where it is at, without an established geography.

The second reason that comes to mind why the Church and the Lord might hesitate in giving the world an established geography of the Book of Mormon seems also obvious, especially when one considers the controversy over the currently prescribed Book of Mormon geographies. There are arguments and controversies. Contention is of the Devil. Even if the 'true' Book of Mormon geography where established, there would be science and the personal thoughts and perceptions of men that would find fault and argue against the truth of the matter. Just how may people argue about the divinity of Christ? Such an enlarged field of topics and matters of men's debates would be an ever enlarging web of confusion not needed and actually quite distracting to the simple gospel messages of the Book of Mormon and the straight forward testimony that the Holy Ghost can offer to such directly from God without all the rest of the 'stuff.'

Consider the pronounced feelings of adamancies that are currently professed by those who so outwardly pronounce their Book of Mormon geological models to the public and so openly defame others who have an opposing opinion on the matter under the guise of academic prowess. One prominent current line of thought seems to be to denounce Cumorah as being the Hill Cumorah in the state of New York, thus making two Cumorahs. Whether this is the case or not is beside the point here. The point is that certain supported theories and 'theories' should be emphasized, often vigorously attach others with differing opinions to the point of alienation's and heated emotional debates over something that is totally in reality unknown. Book reviews of some research groups who have adopted one point of view, say the Meso-America locality for the Book of Mormon exclusively, often basis their reviews of other's works on the fact of non-Meso-America compliance being highly criticized and non compliance with the 'Soreson' model and line of thought being highly considered and referenced instead of a review of a work based solely on it own merits without any such predetermined bias.

It is not that a study of the Book of Mormon geography is not beneficial. It can be and is. Many insights are obtained and convictions of truthfulness confirmed by such study. And I feel that any such study can be most beneficial. But the myopic frame of mind should not be maintained when the truth has not been so reveled or sanctioned. I too have a theory of model of the Book of Mormon lands which I favor for various reasons. But I do appreciate other's works who present differing ideas and I do not critically degrade any of them. While I consider my opinion as what I believe, in such a matter where the final fact is yet to be determined, I realize that I could be wrong. I have to wonder why others with such conceptual models they favor do not have the same slant? Do they know more than what the Church has reveled? Or are the otherwise motivated? I don't put down any of their models as being wrong or false. I accept them for what they are worth. There are points that I consider in selecting what my thoughts are over what others have presented, but I do not discount them as being wrong and critically rail on them for having such a different thought on the matter. They may will be right. I just don't think so because of what I have studied and considered myself. And until such is reveled and official established I wished all would adhere to such a line of tolerance of maintaining an open mind on the subject.

Right now the light seems far better for the study of the lands of Meso-America. The lands are open, free, and highly studied. And I do consider them to be lands that both the Nephites and Jaredites did live in during the days of the Book of Mormon. So I am not surprised that many support it as being the primary lands of the Book of Mormon. Perhaps I am looking where the light isn't so good and that is the much more inaccessible lands of the drug lords of Colombia. But just because I am look where the access is diminished doesn't make me wrong. I have to look where I have come to believe the lands of Zarahemla are, regardless of the light that is available to establish such. I may be wrong, I may be right. But until the Church makes it official, I feel slighted by those who would critically defame such ideas merely because it doesn't fit their own opinions no matter how highly educated they may be.